Wolfox wrote on Mar 19, 2014, 14:35:To be fair, beauty and fitness are culturally defined, not biologically.

Not really. We are biologically driven to prefer certain traits, mostly symmetry in structure, skin texture, and shape cues which indicate sexual maturity. This cuts across cultures and even species -- the research is pretty solid on that. Granted, weight preferences do change through time and across cultures.

Which is what I meant. Beauty and fitness are cultural constructs influenced (but not determined) by biological predisposition. And while there is some solid research on the subject, the conclusions of such research (and its scope) are still under discussion. The explanation power of evolutionary psychology is still more flimsy than it would like to be, and its conclusions should be considered with caution.

Cutter wrote on Mar 19, 2014, 13:34:Because - as it's hard wired to the genes - we're all attracted to beauty and fitness because it's an evolutionary trait.

To be fair, beauty and fitness are culturally defined, not biologically. The beautiful women of centuries ago would be considered fat nowadays; similarly, "fat" people were considered more healthy than slim, "fit" people back then. Our brain is complex enough that our genes very rarely determine something in our behavior - scientists today talk more about gene "influence" than "determination" (as far as our behavior goes), and most of our behavior is actually "programmed" by cultural influence.

Cutter wrote on Mar 18, 2014, 17:53:If you haven't grabbed Expeditions: Conquistador yet, run, don't walk, to get it. Totally a steal for $5. I don't know how or why this was overlooked by so many people but it's a gem. Ima probably give this another playthrough again very soon. I hope it did well enough to warrant a follow-up.

That's exactly what I'm gonna do later today. That game has been in my wishlist for quite some time, waiting for a discount.

I've been playing the game so far (I bought it on Steam, just saying) and it's been pretty good. For me, it's at least as good as the first one, which I really, really liked.

I'm ok with the stealth sections, because, for me, they're just disguised puzzles, mostly. There's one stealth section that's pointless and potentially agravating, but it's one single section in a game that's been pretty good so far, so I'm ok with it.

Of course, I have yet to finish the game, and I must be 7 hours in, which is less than halfway through. From what I've seen so far, though, I'd say it's very likely I'll get the DLC at some point.

Watter wrote on Mar 4, 2014, 12:57:By coincidence, I just finished Origins last night so it's quite fresh in my mind, I may be one of the few who enjoyed Origins more than City and definitely more than Asylum. In Asylum, and to a certain extent City, all of the side missions felt very distracting and in the way of the very focused story and sense of urgency. I thought Origins did a much better job of integrating the various these missions from a timing and story perspective. I also found the combat to be a little more difficult (well, until you got the shock gloves at least) in Origins which was appreciated.

At first, I was enjoying Origins more than City as well, but then things began to fall apart. There are many good things about Origins, many brave things, and many moments of brilliance - but, at least for me, there are even more clumsy moments and obvious oversights, enough that they mostly ruined the experience for me.

With a bit more of care and polish, Origins could have been the best of them all. Instead it will be remembered as the worse in the series, which is just sad.

Bundy wrote on Feb 26, 2014, 09:50:I'm still playing through the first on steam, whose ending was spoiled for me by every other website that had an article promoting the second (In this game, Gabriel rises as Dracula! Nooooooooooooooooooooo!). I dunno, I like it! Apparently I'm the only one! Oh well.

Not the only one. Lords of Shadow was in my personal top 2 games for 2013.

I've played for a bit over 2 hours and it's really good so far. Runs smooth, looks great, combat has a bit more nuance than the first one, and some pretty cool setpieces.

In that time, I've played through two of the much criticized "stealth sections". They didn't bother me nearly as much as it did most reviewers (at least not yet) because they are, for all intents and purposes, just disguised puzzles - puzzles that, so far, are no worse (and no better) than the puzzles in the first game.

Apart from a somewhat gratuitous scene that serves little real purpose (even if it's quite powerful, in an unsettling kind of way) and some weird and uncalled-for innuendo by one of the early bosses, I'm really enjoying the game. But there's still about 18 hours of game to go, so it may be a bit too early to say how good it is or is not. As beginnings go, though, it's pretty good.

...a chance to make their own judgment and help us counter these malicious and false reviews being put up by a select few and their mob in order to get back at us for banning, thus preventing them from disrupting our forums.

... what

I see you're not used to Derek's style. That is actually a pretty good example of what's been going on since Battlecruiser 3000AD.

Dagnamit wrote on Jan 12, 2014, 12:43:I'm tempted to pull the trigger on revengeance. It's got some good buzz. Any impressions?

So far I really like it. Gameplay is excellent, it looks pretty good, and no performance problems anywhere (it's really smooth). I'm playing with a controller, though, so I have no idea how good (or bad) the K&M controls are.

If you like the genre, I would definitely recommend it, assuming you have no issues with the crazy region-locking.